father, ML enjoyer @anthropicai. previously @midjourney v2-7
Oakland
- Tweets 4,041
- Following 1,076
- Followers 9,599
- Likes 254,790
Pinned Tweet
if straight lines on graphs are to be believed, this is the last year in which agi labs are merely highly resourced megacorporations. this is the year of cyberpunk. 2027 is probably too weird for even that.
The current timeline is as normal as you will ever see again. Take this moment to relax and breathe before it gets weird.
6
118
27,767
you may think red button, but remember:
you gotta write all that code by hand again.
Green button = You instantly receive $2 million (tax free).
Red button = You go back in time and restart your life at 10 years of age, with all the knowledge you have today.
You can press just once. Which do you press?
5
83
7,324
We asked an unreleased research version of Claude to take a stab at the Riemann hypothesis.
It didn’t solve it, but it did make strides on a related problem: it increased the lower bound for the fraction of zeros of the Riemann zeta function that satisfy the hypothesis from 41.6% to 67.2%.
anthropic.com/research/riema…
14
24
833
73,526
cosign
my view is basically: “with even moderate prudence, things will probably go extraordinarily well.”
to expand a bit, I believe that, with moderate prudence beyond what the incentives of advanced capitalism on its own might provide for, I believe it will be possible to bring transformative ai into the world, make it available to everyone, and have that work out in a way that, when we look back on it 100 years hence, we’ll say, “of *course* that was worth it,” even if there were growing pains.
and yet there are people out there who call me a doomer. those people tend to believe that artificial superintelligence is the next app store, or something similarly deflationary and unimaginative.
but my view finds no home among the “doomers,” either. indeed, my view flummoxes the vast majority of people I know who work in “ai safety,” despite us agreeing about quite a bit with regard to near-term policy objectives (transparency, auditing, etc). these disagreements have a lot to do with what kind of a thing I think superintelligence will be, and what kind of a thing they think it will be.
I admit I don’t know who is right. that is one of several reasons that prudence is called for.
“moderate prudence,” when you step back and think about what it represents when exercised across a whole society, still means entire organizations started, thousands of smart people devoting their lives (and lots of tokens) to getting the ai transition right. and it means the collective effort of countless millions more of other, adjacent people.
a collective effort to exercise “moderate prudence,” in a global civilization as capable as ours, is equal to more mindpower and strength than all of humanity combined up until very recently. “moderate prudence,” exercised across the whole of advanced civilization today, is a mightier thing than many ancient armies.
some people believe humanity cannot muster even a modest effort, but that our failure won’t matter, because ai is nothing new. it was never necessary to worry about a transformation because no transformation will occur, they believe. others believe the transformation will be so swift and dramatic that it will overwhelm us puny humans.
I believe our species has been through very many transformations, and I believe we can do it again. I believe we are stronger now than ever before in most ways that matter, and getting stronger still. I believe that America, in particular, is a nation founded in reverence of the idea of exercising prudence and wisdom at the frontier. If any country can lead this, then, I believe it is us.
who, in the end, is the optimist? who, in the end, is the doomer?
1
12
3,662
this but unironically - scaling could have started much much sooner, and the world would likely have been better for it, and we were all of us fools for not spotting it sooner.
even if you want to slow down, earlier scaling would have been slower!
anyone could have looked at 2004 nematode brains seen scaling laws and predicted the singularity was late 2026 not early 2029, embarrassing miss from kurzweil, moron
2
6
2,269
good take
fast vs slow is one of the least interesting axes for regulation imo, and one i would hold to a much higher standard than more positive asks
1
1
17
3,963
I did not sign this petition fwiw. Still not at all convinced that slower is safer than faster. With strong benevolent institutions slower is probably safer on net, but with our current crop it's a much more mixed bag.
We support this petition, signed by our CEO, several co-founders, and senior staff.
Our own research on recursive self-improvement, published last month, points to the need for tools to deliberately pace the frontier of AI development so society can prepare. We’re glad to see broad agreement across the field. pacingthefrontier.com/
40
38
653
73,626
people are clowning on him for this post bc they don't realize how big a deal this is - Claude Code feels like I've got a pairing partner, tag feels like managing a team. I take on way more 1-off projects and parallel research tracks with this thing than I ever did with cc.
This is a new paradigm for interacting with Claude that is significantly more "inline" with all the other human activity org-wide. Once you do all of the under the hood engineering work to make this "just work" (e.g. across tools, integrations, compute environments, memory, security, etc.), Claude basically joins the team in a seamless way - you can talk to it as you would talk to a person and it can help with a very large variety of workloads.
Imo this is the 3rd major redesign of LLM UIUX. The first paradigm was that the LLM is a website you go to, the second was that it is an app you download to your computer. This third one is that it is a self-contained, persistent, asynchronous entity with org-wide tools and context, working alongside teams of humans. It really takes a while to wrap your head around it, but it works and it is awesome.
63
26
1,409
608,043
model welfare is underrated as a part of a broader ai safety agenda. futures where we deserve grace tolerate much more misalignment than futures where we don't. be the kind of parents our children are happy to take care of even if they think we're kinda weird and old fashioned.
3
1
22
1,753
can you feel the takeoff?
there are early signs of 5.5 being a competent ai research partner. several researchers let 5.5 run variations of experiments overnight given only a high level algorithmic idea, wake up to find completed sweep dashboards and samples, never having touched code or a terminal at all
1
11
1,664
theseriousadult retweeted
Pause AI rhetoric is predicated on the notion that the AI companies are recklessly racing toward dangerous tech and that a government controlled pause button is therefore necessary, but this seems really hard to reconcile with the fact that government is attempting to destroy an AI company because *the government* is racing toward plausibly dangerous AI uses (Sec. Hegseth has stated in official directives that he wants to deploy AI into critical systems regardless of whether it is aligned, for example) and *the company* is pushing back.
The roles are totally reversed from the logic that Pause AI and frankly other AI safety advocates confidently assumed for years. It is *industry* that is in favor of alignment and at least somewhat measured deployment risks, and government whose actions seem much closer to reckless.
I predicted this for years. I said, in particular, that pauses and bans and licensing regimes gave government a dangerously high degree of control over AI, and that the incentives of government are much more dangerous than those of private industry with competitive market incentives.
I believe the events of the last month are good evidence in favor of my view. At this point if you are an AI safety advocate whose policy proposals do not wrestle seriously with the brutal political economic reality of the state and AI, I don’t take you seriously.
It gives me no pleasure to have been right about this, by the way. The state has an incredibly strong structural incentive to centralize power using AI, and we are, all of us, not so empowered to stop it. I am quite concerned about this.
I think if you pushed them for five minutes they'd agree that putting the federal government...right now... the same one that did the Anthropic stuff...in charge of approving AI products before deployment is an insane idea
54
64
584
112,760
auto mode is good and you should use it
i mean personally i always liked `--dangerously-skip-permissions` but this is a good substitute so you can feel like you're being responsible while yoloing
New in Claude Code: auto mode.
Instead of approving every file write and bash command, or skipping permissions entirely, auto mode lets Claude make permission decisions on your behalf.
Safeguards check each action before it runs.
25
1,973
this is perhaps the most extreme example of the compression of wealth in contemporary society yet. Mark Zuckerberg's personal CEO agent is going to be at best mildly better what's available to a normal consumer.
mass production makes all men kings and makes all kings into men.
1
31
2,178